Spec URL : https://sites.google.com/site/lakshminaras2002/home/haddock.spec?attredirects=0&d=1 SRPM URL : https://sites.google.com/site/lakshminaras2002/home/haddock-2.7.2-2.fc14.src.rpm?attredirects=0&d=1 rpmlint output: ghc-haddock.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-haddock-devel.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-haddock-prof.i686: E: devel-dependency ghc-haddock-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-haddock-prof.i686: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-haddock-prof.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.12.3/haddock-2.7.2/libHShaddock-2.7.2_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. haddock.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. haddock.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary haddock-2.7.2 Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. haddock.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings.
Created attachment 460968 [details] haddock.spec-1.patch Patch to clean up a bit: - fix base package group - use upstream main webpage - don't need filelist file for base package
Thanks, I will integrate the patch and submit the spec file and srpm URLs.
SPEC file link : https://sites.google.com/site/lakshminaras2002/home/haddock.spec?attredirects=0&d=1 SRPM link https://sites.google.com/site/lakshminaras2002/home/haddock-2.7.2-2.fc14.src.rpm?attredirects=0&d=1 rpmlint output: ghc-haddock.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-haddock-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-haddock-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-haddock-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-haddock-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-haddock-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/haddock-2.7.2/libHShaddock-2.7.2_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. haddock.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. haddock.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary haddock-2.7.2 Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. haddock.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings.
(Is it possible you could use fedorapeople instead to host your submissions?)
Sorry for the delay.. SPEC file URL: http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/haddock.spec SRPM URL http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/haddock-2.7.2-2.fc14.src.rpm
Likewise, sorry. :) Here is the review: +:ok, NA: not applicable, !: needs attention MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint output haddock.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ghc-haddock.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum ghc-haddock.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. ghc-haddock-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ghc-haddock-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-haddock-devel ghc-haddock-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum ghc-haddock-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-haddock-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/haddock-2.7.2/libHShaddock-2.7.2_p.a 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. haddock.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum haddock.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary haddock-2.7.2 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. These are ok. [+] MUST: Package Naming Guidelines [+] MUST: spec file name must match base package %{name} [+] MUST: Packaging Guidelines. [!] MUST: Licensing Guidelines Need license in ghc-haddock too. Actually this is kind of a ghc-rpm-macros bug/rfe, so I will see if I can improve it. [+] MUST: License field in the package spec file must match actual license. BSD [+] MUST: include license files in %doc if available in source [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English and be legible. [+] MUST: source md5sum matches upstream release 7b4a8d47ef01d06dc778e0237bafbf1b haddock-2.7.2.tar.gz [+] MUST: must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on one main arch http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2725798 (f14 build since ghc is broken in rawhide right now) [+] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [NA] MUST: use %find_lang macro for .po translations [NA] MUST: packages which store shared library files in the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [NA] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [NA] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [NA] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [NA] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [NA] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. Once we have a copy of the license on the shared lib package I am happy to approve this review.
Created attachment 473829 [details] haddock.spec-2.patch - update to cabal2spec-0.22.4
(In reply to comment #6) > [!] MUST: Licensing Guidelines > > Need license in ghc-haddock too. > > Actually this is kind of a ghc-rpm-macros bug/rfe, > so I will see if I can improve it. Sorry this fine in the f14 build and is purely a f15 rawhide regression in ghc-rpm-macros. I would suggest building first for f14 (and f13) until it is clearer how we will do leksah for ghc-7.0.1. Package is APPROVED. Please apply the above patch, before building.
Thanks for the review. Yes, I will apply the patch.
(I note for the record that haddock-2.9(.1) is out, which is compatible with ghc-7.0.1 haddock. One could hope that leksah-0.9 will work with it.)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: haddock Owners: narasim New Branches: F13 F14 InitialCC: haskell-sig Requesting devel branch.
A correct to comment 12 "Requesting to unretire devel branch."
Git done (by process-git-requests).
I also unretired the devel branch; you should log into pkgdb and claim it.
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4363
The fedorahosted ticket has been closed. The next step would be to build haddock for devel,f14 and f13.
F15 build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=217316
Let's include the review bug next time so it gets closed by bodhi.